Maybe I've misread you and the Lionhearted Cardinal... but when Cardinal Burke says that AL is not magisterial, he says, in effect, that it can't be binding -- it has no binding authority because lack of clarity and exhortatory observations can't bind...

Lionel :

Cardinal Burke has also said that the 'only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching'. He continues : 'In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.'

'does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.'

For Cardinal Raymond Burke, Catholic theology must assume subjective cases are objective. It must mix up and confuse what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible. It must negate standard forms of philosophical reasoning, contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction and reject magisterial documents with an irrational premise and inference to create a non traditional theology.

For the cardinal, whom I still admire and respect, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to objective persons.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 is not hypothetical for him as it is for me.Instead it is an objective exception to the perennial doctrine on exclusive salvation in the Church.This is his new salvation theology.

Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin for Cardinal Burke.Since he approves the moral theology expressed in AL 301.He approves AL saying that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin, meaning it will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace.He is saying that he can judge who is living in mortal sin and will not go to Hell.

This is contrary to the Council of Trent and Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul II. He is saying it is possible to judge.There could be some Catholics, for him, whose subjectivity can be judged.So it will be concluded that they are exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin.Hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin !

So in , morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology and this is fine with him.The new doctrine says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation since there are known exceptions and every one who is living in traditional manifest mortal sin may not be in mortal sin, since there are known exceptions.

So with the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin) doctrine has been changed de jure (there are judgeable exceptions to mortal sin) and de facto ( there are judgeable known exceptions to persons living in mortal sin).The change is there in principle and in fact in morals and this is the new doctrine accepted by Cardinal Burke.

Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water).This is accepted by Cardinal Burke. It is nothing new.So de facto there are judgeable, known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So there is a new doctrine in principle and in fact on faith (salvation).Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for Cardinal Burke is no more like it was in the 16th century.

So we have Cardinal Burke assuming we can judge subjective cases with Protestant situation ethics, a subjectivism made objective. This is not humanly possible. Since only God can judge if someone in mortal sin will not be going to Hell or has Sanctifying Grace.However for the cardinal there can be known exceptions projected against the traditional teaching on morals and faith.The doctrinal change based on a theological innovation can be known implicitly in Amoris Laetitia.Since AL 301 explicity tells us what was the theology used. Implicitly we know that the new theology was used based on being able to judge subjective or social factors and then concluding that there are objective exceptions to mortal sin.This is normal for Cardinal Burke.

He does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He mixes up what is hypothetical as being objective and known. It is with this subjectivism that he interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition in general. With his subjectivism he changes the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms and they include the baptism of desire and blood...'With known exceptions to the dogma EENS he has rejected the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS itself, defined by three Church Councils. He is contradicting the pope being infallible ex cathedra, especially when the Church Councils defined EENS.

He interprets Vatican Council II like Fr. Hans Kung S.J who assumes LG 16 refers to known cases, objectively saved without the baptism of water. So LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS for Fr. Kung. So with invisible cases being visible, Vatican Council II contradicts the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra, in defining EENS, according to some of his early writings.He said Fr. John Courtney Murray did what no one in Church history could do i.e refute the teaching in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. He does not realize that this is only possible by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known to be exceptions to EENS.

For me this is all heresy. We cannot in principle and in fact change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, reject a defined dogma, interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and project exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and morals.This is a break with 'the perennial doctrine and discipline'.It contradicts 'the constant teaching of the Church'.

Asks Pope to clarify that adulterous couples must refrain from physical relations to receive sacraments

VATICAN (ChurchMilitant.com) - Bishop Athanasius Schneider is asking the Pope to confirm that those living in irregular unions must refrain from marital relations in order to receive the sacraments.

His Excellency, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, is responding to the Pope's recent apostolic exhortation, "Amoris Laetitia" (AL), which he says is being interpreted contrary "to the perennial teaching of the universal Magisterium" by priests and even bishops.

In an approved translation published in Crisis Magazine, he's requesting Pope Francis to reaffirm Pope St. John Paul II's statement in paragraph 84 of his 1981 apostolic exhortation "Familiaris Consortio," which states: "Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."

His excellency laments, "This formula is unfortunately and incomprehensibly missing in AL."

Schneider points out that footnote 329 of AL seemingly contradicts this "perennial teaching":

In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living "as brothers and sisters" which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.

Bishop Schneider says he's making this "contribution to reflection and dialogue on sensitive issues surrounding marriage" in response to the invitation Pope Francis made in paragraph two of his exhortation, which reads, "The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity."

Bishop Schneider is viewed by many Catholics as a prominent defender of orthodoxy because he has been urging the Holy See to end the abusive practice of Communion in the hand and to clarify ambiguous phraseology contained in certain documents of Vatican II.

Now his excellency is asking Pope Francis to clarify his recent exhortation, especially chapter eight, which deals with pastoral accompaniment of the divorced and remarried. Schneider reveals,

It is no secret, however, that divorced and remarried couples are admitted to Holy Communion in a number of churches, without their being required to practice continence. It must be admitted that certain statements in AL could be used to justify an abusive practice that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church.

His Excellency says the confusion arises from "the absence of the concrete and explicit affirmation of the doctrine and constant practice of the Church, founded on the Word of God and reiterated by Pope John Paul II."

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin — which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such — a person can be living in God's grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church's help to this end.

Footnote 351 to this paragraph adds to the confusion by saying, "In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments."

But as Bp. Schneider points out, the above statement pertaining to the discernment by the divorced and remarried of their worthiness to receive the sacraments is preceded by paragraph 300, which affirms:

[T]his discernment can never prescind from the gospel demands of truth and charity. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God's will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it.

Bishop Schneider is thus calling for "an authentic interpretation of AL by the Apostolic See" as "certain statements in AL could be used to justify an abusive practice that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church."

Father Matthias Gaudron, priest of the Society of St. Pius X, comments on the subjectivism of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) but along with the SSPX priests who comment on AL he does not see the subjectivism in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Similarly for Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw subjective cases are objective.So they interpret Vatican Council II,like Fr.Gaudron, as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). For them LG 16 refers to objective persons.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS. It is not hypothetical but objective.This is the new salvation theology for them for the SSPX and for Fr. Gaudron.

Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin.So for Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw AL 301 is based upon the new moral theology which they have accepted.

But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting.The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward. But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.-E. Christian Brugger, Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia

AL says that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin, meaning it will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace. It will be judged that there could be some persons whose subjectivity can be judged .So it will be concluded that they are exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin.This is something, not only for God, according to AL, but also for humans to judge i.e hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin.

So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.

With the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin, to judge hypothetical cases as being objective, doctrine has been changed de jure (there are judgeable exceptions to mortal sin) and de facto ( there are judgeable known exceptions to persons living in mortal sin).The change is there in principle and in fact in morals.

Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism fo desire and being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) and so de facto there are judgeable, known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So there is a new doctrine in principle and in fact on faith(salvation).

So by assuming we can judge subjective cases there are exceptions projected to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.The doctrinal change based on a theological innovation can be known implicitly in Amoris Laetitia.Since AL 301 explicity tells us what was the theology used. Implicitly we know that the new theology was used based on being able to judge subjective or social factors and then concluding that there are objective exceptions to mortal sin.

Father Matthias Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw, does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He notices this subjectivism in AL but does not see this same subjectivism in the SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades

Father Mathias Guadron, SSPX has got it right : there are no known exceptions to the traditional moral teachings.The new moral theology is based on an irrationality